i
Summary Report
Capacity Building Needs Assessment
for Community Forestry Development in
Indonesia
Prepared by
Mia Siscawati & R. Yando Zakaria
Edited by
Cor Veer
for
RECOFTC
The Center for People and Forests
Bogor and Bangkok
May-July 2010
ii
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ vi
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 2
II.1. Country Profile ............................................................................................................................. 2
Forest Policy Development ............................................................................................................. 2
Customary Practices and Community Forestry............................................................................... 2
Development of Community Forestry Policies and Programs ........................................................ 3
Different Forms of Community Forestry in Indonesia .................................................................... 5
Actors and Collaboration in Community Forestry Development.................................................... 5
Issues in Community Forestry Development in Indonesia ............................................................. 7
Suggestions for RECOFTC’s Program Activities in Indonesia .......................................................... 8
II.2. Stakeholders and their Competencies ....................................................................................... 10
Organizational Capacity Assessment ............................................................................................ 10
Individual Capacity Assessment .................................................................................................... 13
II.3. Capacity Building Needs ............................................................................................................. 16
Network or Forum (of NGOs, Community Groups, or Multi-stakeholders) ................................. 16
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) ...................................................................................... 17
Community Groups ....................................................................................................................... 19
The Ministry of Forestry ................................................................................................................ 20
Provincial and District Forestry Agencies ...................................................................................... 21
Private Sector (Perhutani) ............................................................................................................. 21
Research and Academic Institutions ............................................................................................. 22
III. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 22
III.1. Facilitation of Organizational Capacity Development .............................................................. 22
Organizing Training ....................................................................................................................... 22
iii
Facilitating Strategic Networking .................................................................................................. 23
Facilitating Sharing and Learning .................................................................................................. 23
Developing a Collaborative Pilot Project on Strengthening Community Forestry Models ........... 23
Developing a Collaborative Capacity Building Process on Community Forestry Policy ................ 23
III.2. Facilitation of Individual Capacity Development ...................................................................... 24
Community Forestry Policy and Planning ..................................................................................... 24
Program Development and Project Management ........................................................................ 24
Awareness, Public Relations and Advocacy .................................................................................. 24
Sustainable Development and Conflict Management .................................................................. 24
Gender Analysis in Community Forestry....................................................................................... 24
Annex 1 Forms of Community Forestry in Indonesia ................................................................... 25
List of Tables, Figures and Boxes
Table 1 Roles and Gaps in Competencies ............................................................................................. 15
Figure 1 Key Actors in Community Forestry Development (1998 - present) ......................................... 6
Figure 2 Suggested Priorities for RECOFTC's Program in Indonesia ...................................................... 9
Box 1 RECOFTC's CBNA Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 1
Box 2 One Example of an Individual Competency Profile .................................................................... 14
iv
List of Acronyms
AMAN : Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (National Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of
the Archipelago)
APBD : Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (the Regional Income and Budget
Allocation)
BPN : Badan Pertanahan Nasional (National Land Agency)
CBFM : Community Based Forest Management
CBA : Capacity Building Needs Assessment
CBOs : Community-based Organizations
CF : Community Forestry
CSO : Civil Society Organization
CSR : Corporate Social Responsibility
Ditjen BAPLAN : Directore General of Forest Planning
Ditjen BPK : Directore General of Forest Production
Ditjen PHKA : Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation
Ditjen RLPS : Directorate General of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry
DKN : Dewan Kehutanan Nasional (the National Forestry Council)
DNPI : Dewan Nasional untuk Perubahan Iklim (the National Council for Climate
Change)
FAO : Food and Agricultural Organization
FE-UI : Economic Faculty- Indonesia University
FGD : Focus Group Discussion
FKKM : Forum Komunikasi Kehutanan Masyarakat (Communication Forum on
Community Forestry)
FMU : Forest Management Unit
FPP : Forest People Program
HKm : Hutan Kemasyarakatan (Community Forest)
HPH : Hak Pengusahaan Hutan (Forest Concessionaries System)
HPH Bina Desa : Village Development of Forest Concessionaires
HUMA : Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum berbasiskan Masyarakat dan
Ekologis (Association for Community and Ecology-based Legal Reform)
HTR : Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (Community-based Timber Estate)
ICEL : Indonesian Center for Environmental Law
ICRAF : World Center for Agroforestry
IPB : Institut Pertanian Bogor (Bogor Agricultural Institute)
IPOs : Indigenous People organizations
JKPP : Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif (Participanty Mapping Network)
KDTI : Kawasan Dengan Tujuan Istimewa (Zone with Special Purpose)
KARSA ; Lingkar Pembaruan Pedesaan dan Agraria (Circle for Village and Agrarian
Reform)
KPA : Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (Consortium for Agrarian Reform)
KPH : Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan (Forest Management Unit)
KpSHK : Konsorsium Pendukung Sistem Hutan Kerakyatan (Supporting Consortium of
Community-based Forest Resources Management System
v
LATIN : Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia (The Indonesian Tropical Institute)
LEI : Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (The Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute)
MFP-DFID : Multi-Forestry Program of DFID
MoF : Ministry of Forestry
NGO : Non Government Organization
NTFP : Non-Timber Forest Product
Perda : Peraturan Daerah (Local Policy)
Perhutani : State Forestry Company works in Java Island
PGRI/ Kemitraan: Partnership for Governance Reform of Indonesia
PHKA : Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (Forest Protection and Nature
Conservation)
PHBM : Pengelolaan Hutan Bersama Masyarakat (Managing Forest With
Community)
PKHR UGM : Pusat Kajian Hutan Rakyat (Center for Community Forestry Research at
University of Gadjah Mada)
PMDH : Pembangunan Masyarakat Desa Hutan (Forest Village Community
Development)
PP : Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation)
PUSDIKLAT Kehutanan :Forestry Education and Training Center
REDD : Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
RENJA : Rencana Kerja Tahunan (Annual Work Plan)
RENSTRA : Rencana Strategis Lima Tahun (Five Year Strategic Plan)
RJPPN : Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Panjang Nasional (Long Term National
Development Plan)
RJPMN: : Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (Medium Term National
Development Plan)
RMI : The Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment
RPP Hutan Adat: Draft policies on customary forest
SHK : Sistem Hutan Kerakyatan (Community-based Forests System)
vi
Executive Summary In this report the results of an independent assessment of the needs for capacity building for the
development of community forestry in Indonesia, are presented. Needs were assessed at the
level of the institutional context of community forestry development, key organizations and
individuals. The team of 2 national consultants carrying out the assessment used the steps and
methods of CBNA procedures developed by RECOFTC.
Key Findings
Country Profile
The state of community forestry in Indonesia, including the development of community forestry
concepts and policies, cannot be understood without considering the history and wider context
of forest policy in Indonesia. Various forms of community forestry exist , which can be divided
into more formal government-sponsored arrangements and more informal customary
arrangements Many different actors are involved in community forestry development, including
government agencies, legislative bodies, civil society organizations, community groups, private
sector, and funding agencies.
Key Issues and Suggested Priorities of RECOFTC’s Work in Indonesia
Key issues in community forestry development, identified from desk study and interview of
resource persons, were discussed in the first focus group discussion. The issues raised during
the FGD can be categorized into three aspects:
(a) Community forestry policy and its implementation;
(b) Community forestry concepts and models; and
(c) Capacity building of community forestry actors, including government, NGOs, communities
and others.
The first priority for RECOFTC’s program activities in Indonesia is strengthening community
forestry models. Two strategies for strengthening community forestry models are proposed :
(1) Developing new demonstration sites and strengthening existing sites /models;
(2) trengthening local action learning capacity to develop new CF models or new intervention in
existing models (Payment for Environmental Services, REDD, etc).
The second priority is supporting the process and development of community forestry policy.
Two strategies to supportthe process and development of community forestry policy were
suggested:
(1) Strengthening and improving existing policies and their implementation;
(2) Facilitating development of new policies that accommodate the rights of Indigenous People
and local communities.
Stakeholders in Community Forestry Development
The main categories of stakeholders in community forestry development that were identified
during the second FGD are:
- civil society organizations (NGOs, Network of NGOs, local community groups and
Indigenous People groups),
vii
- government organizations (Ministry of Forestry, district governments, village
governments and other government agencies),
- private sector,
- research institutions,
- multi stakeholder forums, and
- funding agencies.
Needs for Developing Organizational Capacity
Most of the consulted stakeholders reported a need for capacity building in program
development and project management at organizational level. Specific topics for capacity
building include budget and financial management, as well as monitoring and evaluation
techniques.
Needs for Developing Individual Capacity
Capacity building needs of the staff of the consulted organizations vary with their role.
However, there is one need common to all: program development and project management.
The four other aspects of capacity building needs of stakeholders’ personnel are:
- Community Forestry Policy and Planning,
- Awareness, Public Relations and Advocacy,
- Sustainable Development and Conflict Management, and
- Gender Analysis in Community Forestry
Recommendations
It is recommended that RECOFTC facilitates capacity building process at two levels, at
organizational level, and at the level of individuals, i.e., the staff of organizations involved in
community forestry development.
Facilitation of Organizational Capacity Building
Organizing trainings on CF-related program development and project management,
which include specific topic such as budget and financial management, monitoring and
evaluation techniques.
Facilitating Strategic Networking
Facilitating Shared Learning
Developing Collaborative Pilot Projects on Strengthening Community Forestry Model
Developing Collaborative Capacity Building Processes on Community Forestry Policy
Facilitation of Individual Capacity Building in:
Community Forestry Policy and Planning
Program Development and Project Management
Awareness, Public Relations and Advocacy
Sustainable Development and Conflict Management
Gender Analysis in Community Forestry
1
Box 1 RECOFTC's CBNA Guidelines
Establishment of CBNA team
Preparation Process; briefing from RECOFTC,
brainstorming between the CBNA team and RECOFTC’s
team, designing approaches and methods, .
Country Profile: through brainstorming, literature
review, and the first FGD.
Stakeholder Analysis; through brainstorming,
interviews, and the second FGD.
Preparing Competency Profiles; through document
review, brainstorming, organizing the third FGD, semi-
structured interview/ questionnaire survey, and in-
depth interviews
Individual Capacity Assessment; through
brainstorming, document review, semi-structured
interviews/ questionnaire survey, brainstorming, and
in-depth interviews.
Organisation Assessment; through questionnaire
survey, semi-structured interview, and in-depth
interviews.
Capacity Assessment Report; reviewing and analyzing
data; writing the draft report and receiving comments
from RECOFTC team (of Indonesia and regional office).
I. Introduction The assessment targets major actors in community forestry development, with an
interest to contribute to RECOFTC’s future program in Indonesia and/or working on the key
issues and themes that RECOFTC works on, such as rights, good governance and benefit,
climate change, conflict management and market access.
The assessment in Indonesia was
conducted by a team of two national experts
under guidance of an international expert, close
supervision of the RECOFTC Country Program
Officer, and with the use of the RECOFTC
guidelines for capacity building needs
assessment.
Three focus group discussions (FGD)
complemented with literature review and
interviews formed the core of the RECOFTC
CBNA approach.
This combination of methods was
applied to obtain as much information as
possible and to capture stakeholders’ ideas and
perceptions on key issues of community
forestry in Indonesia, possible priorities for
RECOFTC’s interventions in Indonesia, and
capacity building needs. Thirty-six people from
30 organizations participated in this process.
The main results of the assessment are
presented in this report. We first present the
history and context of community forestry
development in Indonesia in the country profile
(II.1). Next we discuss the main types of actors
and forms of collaboration, the challenges and
issues in community forestry development as identified by key stakeholders. These form the
basis for their recommendations for RECOFTC’s future program priorities in Indonesia.
In II.2, we present our findings from the analysis of the key stakeholders of RECOFTC’s
program in Indonesia. The gaps between the required and existing competencies form the basis
for the identification of their needs for capacity development. These capacity building needs are
presented in section II.3., for the 7 categories of stakeholders identified during the stakeholder
analysis.
The competency profiles for these organizations and for their main roles in community
forestry development are also described in considerable detail.
Finally the results of the assessments of the gaps between required and existing
competencies of staff in key positions in stakeholder organizations are presented as individual
capacity assessments.
2
II. Findings
II.1. Country Profile
In this section the state of community forestry development in Indonesia is explored.
Forest Policy Development
In tracing the development of forest policy, one needs to take account of the differences in
conditions between Java and the other islands outside Java (known also as “the Outer Islands”).
In colonial Java, the Dutch Colonial Forest Service (Boschwezen) developed state forestry by
drawing boundaries between agricultural and forest lands, declaring all unclaimed and forest
lands as the domain of the state, and adopting the German structures and ideology of ‘scientific’
forest management (Peluso 1992, Simon 2001). Scientific forestry then was applied and
developed in managing the teak forest plantations of Java, which later turned into a lucrative
business and became an important source of revenue for the colonial government. (Soepardi,
1974; Simon, 2001).
In post colonial Indonesia, the state forestry approach reached its peak during the New Order
era when President Soeharto was in power. The foundation of this regime was political control
and economic development based on the utilization of natural resources. To secure this
process, Soeharto’s administration enacted the Basic Forestry Law of 19671. The law claims
that all forested lands – outside the small private areas – are state-controlled property and
therefore should be managed under the state-controlled system. In applying this system, this
regime exercised the alienation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities from their
communal forest lands. This marks the beginning of a massive process of forest exploitation in
the islands outside Java through the official licensing system of forest lands to both private and
state-owned logging companies as well as timber plantation companies.
Customary Practices and Community Forestry
Community Forestry is defined as a set of activities involving devolution of responsibility and
authority to local communities, enhancing social and economic benefits for communities and
some responsibility of communities for sustainable forest management2.
In line with the differences between Java and Outer Java, Awang (2009),3 notes that in
Indonesia two different terms are generally used for this process. The first term is ‘social
1 This law is the legacy of the colonial forestry laws firstly established in 1865. Along with the Domeinverklaring of 1870, which declared all unclaimed and forest lands as the domain of the state, these laws established the basis for “scientific forestry” as it is practiced today (Peluso, 1992).
2 Community forestry is defined by the following three characteristics: “(a) some degree of responsibility and authority for forest management is formally vested by the government in local communities; (b) a central objective of forest management is to provide local communities with social and economic benefits from forests; and (c) ecologically sustainable forest use is a central management goal, with forest communities taking some responsibility for maintaining and restoring forest health” (Charnley and Poe, 2007, p.303). 3 As stated by Prof. Dr. San Afri Awang, Professor at Forestry School, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, in one interview conducted in October 8 2009. He also discusses the two terms in one of his books (Awang, San Afri. 2006.
3
forestry’, which refers to an alternative approach of forest resources management dealing with
conflicts over the tenurial rights of the forest area, and/or a set of efforts aimed to enable local
communities to get more benefits from forest resource management. The application of social
forestry was initially developed by Perhutani (the State Forestry Company) in 1970s in Java
Island. Perhutani then developed the concept in outside Java in mid 1980s. Perhutani’s social
forestry approach was at the time adopted by the Ministry of Forestry into nationwide policies
and programs. Practices of social forestry are usually conducted by both state owned and
private companies which have forest concessionaire permits from the government.
The term ‘community forestry’ is often taken to refer to a variety of forest resources
management practises developed by local communities living in or near forest areas. In line
with this idea, in the mid 1990s environmental NGOs working on forest related issues coined
the term sistem hutan kerakyatan/SHK (‘community-based forest system’) as a generic term for
a variety of community-based forest resource management models developed by Indigenous
Peoples and local communities. The word “system” in that term is intended to cover all aspects,
from management approach to the application of traditional knowledge and wisdom, as well as
customary laws.
Awang (2009) argues that although ‘social forestry’ and ‘community forestry’ / ’community-
based forest system’ have particular differences such as silviculture system, management
regimes, business organization etc, the main aspect that contribute to the difference between
the two concepts is related to who initiates the activities. With a greater role in initiation for
the State Forestry Company or Department in ‘social forestry’, while ‘community forestry’ or
’community-based forest resources systems’ build more on customary arrangements or
community-based initiatives.
Development of Community Forestry Policies and Programs
The need to consider the immediate needs of the people who live inside and surrounding forest
areas in Indonesia and particularly Java has been debated vigorously before and after
independence (Soepardi, 1974b). The debate pro and con participatory approaches continued
from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s4. Pilot projects of community-based forestry were
developed in the early 1960s. However, the development of state-supported community-based
forestry was abruptly stopped after General Soeharto took power in 1966. Few years later, in
the early 1970s, the State Forestry Company (Perhutani) initiated the development of a
community based forestry-related concept on Java Island (Peluso, 1992).
The period of mid-1980s to 1997 was the era when social forestry schemes were adopted and
gradually institutionalized into the state forest management system. However, the tenurial
rights of indigenous people and local community-based forest system were still not recognized.
In 1982, Perhutani (State Forestry Company that works mostly in Java Island)5 began to carry
Dekonstruksi Kehutanan sosial : Reposisi Masyarakat dan Keadilan Lingkungan. Yogyakarta: Bigraf Pub. dan Program Pustaka) 4 See Siscawati & Muhshi, 2008.
5 At the time, Perhutani began to develop teak plantation outside Java, particularly in Sulawesi Island.
4
out a Forest Community Development program, facilitating participation of local communities
in the management of state forests through the establishment of forest farmers groups. The
Ford Foundation provided support to this program through the Java Social Forestry Program in
1986, followed by the Outer Islands Social Forestry Program in 1989 (Peluso 1992, Ford
Foundation 1989). Perhutani’s social forestry program has evolved into a program, which is
currently called Pengelolaan Hutan bersama Masyarakat/PHBM (managing forest with
community) that adopts a collaborative approach, and applies the concept of benefit sharing.
Since Perhutani was considered successful in developing PMDH program in Java, Ministry of
Forestry adopted the approach in the forest concessionaries system (Hak Pengusahaan
Hutan/HPH) in Outer Islands of Indonesia. In 1991, Ministry of Forestry enacted a ministerial
decree on HPH Bina Desa (Village Development of Forest Concessionaires) which later evolved
as a ministerial decree on PMDH (Forest Village Community Development) that obliged forest
concessionaries to provide support for local communities in the development of forest villages
(Siscawati & Muhshi, 2008).
After the political changes in 1998, more significant changes in community forestry policy were
introduced. The regulation considered as the first milestone of this phase was the ministerial
decree on the zone with special purpose to protect the ‘damar’ agroforests of Krui, Lampung
(southern Sumatra)6. This decree, is considered a historic one as it recognizes the legitimacy of
community-managed agroforests on a significant area of State Forest Land (Fay et al. 1998).
The second landmark in this phase was the enactment of Forestry Law No. 41 of 1999, replacing
the Basic Forestry Law No. 5 of 1967. Compared with its predecessor, this new forestry law
provides more space for local communities’ access and rights to manage forest resources.
Forest villagers are now granted equal access to use and manage state forests. However, this
new forestry law still adopts state-based centralized control over forest lands that are not
officially claimed as private lands. The Forestry Law No. 41 of 1999 distinguishes two
categories of the forest: state forest and privately-owned forest. This law recognizes the
existence of customary forest (hutan adat); however it categorizes customary forest as state
forest. It does not address the claim made by Indigenous peoples’ groups that their customary
forests existed long before the modern state of Indonesia was established. This land tenure
problem has become the source of tenurial conflicts in many areas in Indonesia. All of this
shows that the Forestry Laws No. 41 of 1999 has not fully recognized the rights of indigenous
people (masyarakat adat) to forest resources.
The Forestry Law No. 41/1999 serves as the legal basis for Government Regulation (PP) No
6/2007 on “Forest Allocation, Forest Management Plan and Land Utilization”, later revised and
replaced by PP No. 3/2008. This regulation provides a legal basis for managing conservation
forest, protected forest, and production forest through the integrated forest management
system, known as Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan/KPH (Forest Management Unit). At the same
time, this PP provides a legal basis for community empowerment through village forest (hutan
desa), community based forestry (hutan kemasyarakatan), and partnership forestry
(kemitraan). The KPH/FMU system aims to achieve sustainable forest management through
6 SK Menhut No. 47/1998 tentang Kawasan Daerah dengan Tujuan Istimewa (KDTI) Repong Damar Krui
5
the increased economic value of forest products.7 Ministry of Forestry plans that the FMU will
also provide the basis for linking to REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation).
Different Forms of Community Forestry in Indonesia
As a result of the differences in conditions and the processes sketched above, a variety of forms
of community forestry can be found in all forest types, within state and non state forests. There
are ten forms of community forestry, in which eight of them can be categorized as government-
sponsored community forestry. Royo (2006) labels government-sponsored community forestry
as formal community-based forest management8. The other two forms, customary forest and
community-based forest system (sistem hutan kerakyatan/SHK), have no legal/policy basis.
Each form has its main purposes and managing institution(s). See Annex 1 for an overview of
the main characteristics of these community forestry systems.
Actors and Collaboration in Community Forestry Development
The types of actors involved, their roles and the arrangements for collaboration in community
forestry development have evolved in line with the development of the concepts, policies , and
practices over time.
In the period after the reformation (1998 to present), community-based organizations are
stronger and they have better bargaining position at the local level. Other new organizations
include national councils that deal with forest-related issues such as the Dewan Kehutanan
Nasional/DKN (the National Forestry Council) and Dewan Nasional untuk Perubahan
Iklim/DNPI (the National Council for Climate Change).
The period of 1998 to present has also been marked with the participation of legislative bodies
(at national and sub-national levels) and local governments in the formulation process of
community forestry policies. Local governments play an important role in the application
process of government-sponsored community forestry schemes. Private sector has also begun
to participate in the development of community forestry-related practices in state forest areas
where they operate. Universities have strengthened their role in community forestry
knowledge production, which includes actions to integrate community forestry into their
curriculum. Community Forestry Research Center of University of Gadjah Mada has even
developed participatory action research at grassroots level. Donor agencies and other resource
mobilization institutions, including those established at sub-national level such as Community
Foundations have also been playing significant roles in strengthening the development of
community forestry policies and programs.
7 For analysis of FMU see Enhancing Capacity for Improved Community Based Forest Management in Indonesia; Phase
2. RECOFTC, 19 February 2008.
8 Royo, Antoinette. 2006. “Community-based forest management in Indonesia. What is it and how can its
potential be harnessed for economic growth and poverty reduction?”. Jakarta: MFP-DFID. Unpublished Report.
6
The current organizational framework of community forestry in Indonesia is represented in the
diagram in Fig. 1, below.
Above diagram illustrates relations among key players of community forestry in post-
reformation Indonesia (1998-present). Government organizations, which include central
government, regional government, and local government, play significant roles in establishing
policies and official programs on community forestry. Government organizations also play role
in allocating state budget to support the development process of both policies and state-
sponsored programs on community forestry. Legislative bodies (such as national and regional
parliaments) play critical roles in establishing legal framework to support community forestry
policies and programs developed by government agencies. Multi stakeholder forums and policy
networks (such as the National Forestry Council and the Working Group on Forest-based
Community Empowerment) play significant roles in addressing policy-related issues and in
providing contribution substantial contribution to the policy making process and the
establishment of relevant legal framework.
Civil Society
Communities Community Mgmt .
Body Forest Users
Private Sector
RECOFTC
potential points of entry
Forest Management
Forest Industry
NGOs
Academic Institutions
Networks
Legislature
Forumsl
Government Organisations
Central Government
Local Government
Regional Government
Donor agencies
and other
resource
mobilization
institution
Figure 1 Key Actors in Community Forestry Development (1998 - present)
7
Issues in Community Forestry Development in Indonesia
Prof. Dr. San Afri Awang of Forestry Department of Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, noted
that there have been significant changes in policy, which enable changes in of forest
management in Indonesia. However, the realization in the field level has been relatively slow.
Campbell (2003) states that there were three issues concerning community forestry after the
political reform of 1998. The first issue is about rights and access. In this context, the unsolved
problem is conflict between national laws and customary laws. The second issue is resource
distribution, between central and regional actors and between state and private sector.
Improvement in this would require elimination of monopolies of control in processing,
marketing and export (conducted by large scale business firms) of forest products. The third
issue relates to management and coordination. How can monitoring activities be run effectively
against corruption, collusion, nepotism and environment degradation? How to stop massive
process of forest land conversion ? How to overcome illegal logging?
Campbell (2003), and Fay and Sirait (2003) suggest the following steps that are needed to be
taken by various stakeholders in order to support the development of community forestry: (a)
establishment of national policy framework which enable local communities and local
governments to overcome tenurial conflicts in the field; (b) development of clear and flexible
guidelines for forestry staffs working at field level (especially those who focus their work in
strengthening community-based organization involved in forest management activity); (c)
providing space for various community-based organizations to develop their decision making
system and traditional management practices in which Government merely serves as facilitator;
d) NGOs assist community groups in benefiting from new opportunities, discussing sustainable
management options, and developing indicators to monitor and improve their progress; (e)
provide support for the development of marketing of forest products; and (f) develop network
of forest users to enhance shared learning.
Issues Identified by FGD participants
Issues in community forestry development, identified from desk study and interview of
resource persons, were discussed in the first focus group discussion. The issues raised during
FGD can be categorized into three aspects: (a) community forestry policy and its
implementation; (b) community forestry concepts and models; and (c) capacity building of
community forestry actors, including government, NGOs, communities and others.
Issue 1: Community Forestry Policy
Participants of the FGD agreed that existing policies on community forestry have not
accommodated the rights of indigenous people (also known as adat communities) and the
existence of a variety of models of community forestry (could be indigenous models or other
local models). Existing community forestry policies have also not addressed existing tenurial
conflicts. According to Agung Prasetyo of the Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute, the policies
issued by government merely regulate technical aspects and do not address socio-cultural
aspects.
8
Other participants, including Dedi of the Indonesian Tropical Institute (LATIN) emphasized that
current community forestry policies merely view local communities as doers, who have no
significant role in the process of planning, monitoring and evaluation.
The main challenge for the future development of community forestry policies is how to create
new policy or to revise existing ones that could accommodate the diversity in local conditions.
In formulating the future policies, there are two important points that must be considered. First
is tenurial aspect, and the second is the aspect of justice that covers social justice, ecological
justice, as well as justice in land distribution and profit distribution in the management or
business of community forestry.
Issue 2: Community Forestry Concept
Participants of the FGD agreed that various models and forms of community forestry exist and
have been developed by different groups across Indonesia. The models adopted in existing
policies on community forestry might not be best practices of community forestry.
Two participants of the FGD representing community groups noted that adat communities and
local communities have actually developed community forestry models that are in line with
local ecological conditions as well as the socio-cultural situation. But these are not always
recognized.
Issue 3: Capacity Building
Participants of the FGD agreed that capacity of actors who are involved in the development of
community forestry policies, programs, and practices need to be developed. Representatives
from government agencies who attended the FGD mentioned the need to develop the capacity of
government officials, especially those who work in the field. Members of community groups
who joined the FGD also stated that adat communities and local communities need to increase
their capacities in understanding government regulations and other legal frameworks that
provide space for the recognition of their rights over forest resources and other natural
resources.
Referring to unfair practices in community forestry programs such as unfair arrangements for
sharing of benefits between communities and state forestry company (Perhutani),
representatives from Pusdiklat asserted that these practices can be eliminated if community
members have better knowledge about their rights. Capacity building for adat communities and
local communities would increase their bargaining position.
Suggestions for RECOFTC’s Program Activities in Indonesia
The first Focus Group Discussion recommended RECOFTC to work in two main areas in
Indonesia: strengthening community forestry models and supporting the process of
development of community forestry policy.
9
Figure 2 Suggested Priorities for RECOFTC's Program in Indonesia
Role of RECOFTC:
Facilitating Capacity Building Process:
Training, networking, share learning, clearing house, etc.
First possible area of RECOFTC’s facilitation:
Strengthening Community Forestry Models
Strategy 1:
Developing new demonstration sites and strengthening existing
sites/models
Strategy 2:
Strengthening local action learning capacity to develop
new CF models or new intervention in existing
models (Reward for Environmental Services,
Payment for Environmental Services, REDD, etc)
Second possible area of RECOFTC’s facilitation:
Supporting the Process of Development of Community Forestry Policy
(key issues: tenure, justice, devolution)
Strengthening and improving existing policies and their implementation
Facilitating development of new
policies that accommodate rights of Indigenous People and
local communities
Objectives for the work on models are:
- to increase understanding of government officials and to convince ensure them that
community forestry, with a variety of models, shall be considered as the alternative approach in
forest management in Indonesia,
- to fuction as demonstration sites.
There are two main strategies suggested for strengthening community forestry models :
(1) Developing new demonstration sites and strengthening existing sites and models;
(2) Strengthening local action learning capacity to develop new CF models or new intervention
in existing models (Payment for Environmental Services, REDD, etc).
The second possible area of RECOFTC’s facilitation is supporting the process of development of
community forestry policy. There are three important issues that need to be improved in
developing policy on community forestry: (a) right and access, or tenurial system; (2) justice;
and (3) providing authority to the level closest to the community as the main beneficiaries of
such policy.
There are two sugged strategies in the area of supporting the process of development of
community forestry policy:
(1) Strengthening and improving existing policies and their implementation;
10
(2) Facilitating development of new policies that accommodate rights of Indigenous People and
local communities
II.2. Stakeholders and their Competencies
The first FGD identified all stakeholders of community forestry in Indonesia and their respective
roles. Participants of the first FGD then identified RECOFTC’s stakeholders.
The second FGD further identified key stakeholders for RECOFTC’s work in capacity building
process in Indonesia. The key stakeholders that were identified during the second FGD are:
a) Networks or Forums (NGO, community groups, multi stakeholder):
* FKKM (Communication Forum on Community Forestry)
* KpSHK (Consortium to Support Community Based Forest Resource Management)
* AMAN (Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago)
* JKPP (Participatory Mapping Network)
* KPA (Consortium for Agrarian Reform)
b) NGOs:
* LATIN and RMI (focus on CF development and advocacy)
* ICEL and KARSA (focus on conflict management)
* HUMA (focus on legal reform)
c) Community Groups
d)Ministry of Forestry
* Directorate General (DG) of Forest Production Development
* DG Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry
* DG Forest Conservation
* DG Forestry Planning
e) Provincial and District Forestry Agencies
f) Perum Perhutani (former State Forest Enterprise)
g) Research and Academic Institutions
* Gadjah Mada University (UGM-Yogyakarta)
* Agricultural University Bogor (IPB)
* ICRAF
Organizational Capacity Assessment
This section provides information on the result of organizational assessment of RECOFTC’s
proposed key stakeholders in Indonesia. Following RECOFTC’s CBNA Guideline, the
organizational assessment focuses on five aspects: 1)program planning; 2)service delivery;
11
3)human resource management; 4)budget and financial management; 5)stakeholder
communication.
Network/Forum (of NGOs, Community Groups, or Multi-stakeholders)
Strengths Weakness
Program planning Regular strategic planning M&E
Service delivery Limited by funding constraints
HR management Ltd HR management; no HR development
strategy
Budget & financial
management
If required by donors
Communications OK with partners and public Limited with other stakeholders
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Strengths Weakness
Program planning Long and short term planning Some: no M&E
Service delivery Alternative strategies to address
funding gaps
Limited by funding constraints
HR management Ltd HRM, no HRD
Budget & financial
management
Varies: some good…. ….others weak
Alternative fundraising strategies
Communications When properly funded OK
Occasionally and informally with
their key stakeholders
No regular stakeholder consultation
mechanism
Community Groups
Strengths Weakness
Program planning Regular planning and review
meetings
No records
Service delivery Good
HR management
Budget & financial
management
Good for own resources External funding: Challenge to combine
management of money and teamwork
Communications OK with external stakeholders Weak with marginalized community
members
Government Agencies within Ministry of Forestry
Strengths Weakness
Program planning 20, 5 year and annual work plans
Service delivery Varies: RLPS strong…. ….other DGs: weaker
12
HR management HR policy and dept: develop
competency profiles
Ltd in technical competencies
Budget & financial
management
Government system Insufficient transparency in system
Communications Stakeholders participate projects; in
RLPS also in medium and annual
planning
Shs do not participate in 5 year and annual
planning of other DGs
Provincial and District Forestry Agencies
Strengths Weakness
Program planning As part of district/provincial
planning system; few regions start
to include CF
Economic development bias in planning-CF
not addressed
Service delivery
HR management Similar to MoF More management than technical -CF-
competencies
Budget & financial
management
Special CF budget in few regions
Communications In CF regions, stakeholders are
involved
Private Sector (Perhutani/Java-based State Forestry Company)
Strengths Weakness
Program planning Well established, 5 yr and annual
planning; Coll. For. Mgmt Program
Service delivery Long experience in participatory
approaches; CF delivery depends on
leadership
HR management Similar to MoF Technical/CF competencies , soft skills
development
Budget & financial
management
Communications Stakeholders involved in planning Female stakeholders’ involvement
Research and Academic Institutions
Strengths Weakness
Program planning Good system; alternative funding
system
M&E and fund raising capacity to be
further developed
Service delivery Financial support
HR management Good system Specific CF competencies
Budget & financial
management
Good system
Communications Stakeholder feedback in program
development
13
Individual Capacity Assessment
The organizational profiles presented in the previous section are based on discussion at the
second FGD, where the participants identified key stakeholders and how each key stakeholder
may possibly affect RECOFTC’s possible program. This was followed by formulating a profile for
each of the key stakeholders. The information on the profile was derived from interviews,
official website of the organization, and email communication.
This was followed by the preparation of individual competency profiles for key roles and
position in each organization. According to the capacity building guidelines, “the competency
profile is used to compare the knowledge, qualification and skill possessed by a person who will
perform a particular role with the knowledge, qualification and skills required by the role and to
prepare a capacity development plan for those persons or groups of people to help them
perform the role satisfactorily. This procedure is to be used to develop competency profiles for
all priority roles identified in the Stakeholder Analysis process.”
In preparing a competency profile, we identified competencies for each position and role within
an organization, we firstly identified list of key positions and roles within each key stakeholder
organization, then identified the main function of each position and role and competencies for
that position.
Box 2, on the next page provides one example of such a profile, in this case for the position of
network officer employed by a community network or forum.
A total of 19 such competency profiles were prepared for key positions in NGOs, networks, the
Ministry of Forestry, Local (provincial and district) Government, private sector and research
and academic institutions9. By comparing the key competencies required for each role with the
skills and knowledge of the holders of these positions, the capacity building needs were
identified. These are presented in detail in Siscawati and Yando Zakaria (2010b), and
summarized in Table 1, below.
9 See: Siscawati, M. & R. Yando Zakaria, 2010b. Stakeholder Contributions, Competency Profiles & Individual Capacity Assessments. Prepared as part of the Capacity Building Needs Assessment for Community Forestry Development in Indonesia. RECOFTC, Bangkok. 79 p. Available in digital format from RECOFTC on request, contact: [email protected]
14
Box 2 One Example of an Individual Competency Profile
Competency Profile for Network Officer (employed by a community forestry network or forum)
The main function of the Network Officer: facilitating communication with members of the network and
other multi-stakeholders, facilitating advocacy and awareness on community forestry policies, develop
fundraising for the network.
Key Competencies on Community Forestry Policy and Planning
o Skills:
Understand and interpret relevant legislation (Cfp 3.1.)
Negotiate local agreements to support management of the community forest area (Cpf 4.4.)
Contribute information and recommendations to plans, policies and assessments (Cfp 4.6.)
o Knowledge:
Relevant legislation and legal procedures
Relevant national laws
Role and responsibility of authorities, agencies and other relevant organisations.
Detailed knowledge of the Community Forestry movement, its values, objectives, cultures,
current and future threats, problems and opportunities
Options for community forest management based on best practice examples and publications.
Detailed understanding of country context for CF.
Key Competencies on Awareness, Public Relation and Advocacy
o Skills:
Provide basic information to stakeholders (Apr 1.1.)
Inform network members and the public (Apr 2.1.)
Deliver formal community awareness programmes (Apr 2.3.)
Research, plan, write and design information and awareness publications (Apr 3.2.)
Plan targeted advocacy programs for government representatives and policy makers (Apr
4.1.)
Develop media strategies and campaigns to raise popular support for specific reforms and
issues of national or international importance (Apr 4.2.)
o Knowledge:
Basic factual information about the extent, purpose and values of local CF
Presentation and communication techniques
Creative and interpretive writing.
Research, information gathering and awareness survey techniques.
Culture, gender, ethnic relations.
Key Competencies on Program Development and Project Management
o Skills:
Develop operational plan (Pro 3.1.)
Manage local team leaders and collaborate in the implementation of work plans (Pro 3.2.)
Record and monitor activity results (Pro 3.3.)
Prepare plans for specific in-country activities (Pro 3.4.)
Prepare and negotiate proposals for resources and support (Pro 4.1.)
Develop structured plans and proposals (Pro 4.2.)
Develop collaborative partnerships, plans and programs with other stakeholders (Pro 4.4.)
o Knowledge
Delegation, decision making and other management techniques
M&E techniques
Use of problem analysis, situation analysis, (or similar) approaches, development of logical
frameworks.
Positions and policies of relevant agencies/ organizations.
15
A summary of the results of the individual capacity assessment is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Roles and Gaps in Competencies
Stakeholders Roles
Program Development M&E CF mgmt;
social
assessment
conflict mgmt
gender
analysis
Action Research M&E PAR gender
analysis
Advocacy M&E advocacy
planning
campaigns gender
Community Organizing M&E prog dev and
proj mgmt
gender
analysis
Conflict management M&E conflict mgmt gender
analysis
Public interest lawyer
Networking M&E CF regulations
Policy and planning M&E CF regulations Prog
Dev/Proj
Mgmt
SFM,
conflict &
advocacy
CF Program Development M&E gender
analysis
CF Institutional ArrangementM&E gender
analysis
Technical Officer M&E fund raising gender
analysis
Education and Training M&E training gender
analysis
Field Officer Prog Dev/PMgender
analysis
Local
Government: 1.
Provincial Govt;
2. District Govt
PFO & DFO SFM PD/PM gender
analysis
Policy & Planning attitude to
vil lagers
SFM, CM gender
mainstreami
ng
Technical Officer M&E conflict
management
SFM,
assessment
Researcher PD/PM gender
analysis
Lecturer PD/PM gender
analysis
MoF: 1. RLPS; 2.
BAPLAN; 3. BPK;
4. PHKA; 5.
PUSDIKLAT; 6.
Hukum; 7. WG CE
Private Sector:
1. Perhutani
Research/Acade
mic: 1. ICRAF; 2.
UGM; 3. IPB
Gaps in Competencies
NGOs: 1.KARSA ;
2. ICEL; 3. HUMA;
4. LEI; 5. LATIN; 6.
RMI
Networks: 1.
FKKM; 2. KpSHK;
3. AMAN; 4. KPA;
5. PUSDIKLAT; 6.
Hukum; 7. WG
CE
Technical Assistance M&E CF regulations Training
16
II.3. Capacity Building Needs
In this section the main findings about the needs for individual and organizational
capacity building are presented.
Network or Forum (of NGOs, Community Groups, or Multi-stakeholders)
Network Officers
Network Officers of the networks or forums that are dealing with CF in broad terms (such as
AMAN working on Indigenous People’s rights, and KPA working on agrarian reform and
farmers’ rights), need to have more information about CF specific regulations. They need to be
included in any meetings on CF policies. The role of network officer of these networks is very
important in the second possible area of RECOFTC’s work in Indonesia, which is supporting
development of CF policies (with key issues: tenure, justice, devolution). The capacity of
network officers in program development and project management, particularly in monitoring
and evaluation techniques, needs to be further developed.
Networks’ Technical Assistance Officers
Technical Assistance Officers of all networks, especially those who work in the networks that
work on CF in broad terms, need to have more knowledge about CF policies and relevant
regulations. They also need to have analytical skills on how to link CF policies and relevant
regulations to the technical aspects they mainly deal with (such as participatory mapping, etc.).
Other capacity building need for networks’ Technical Assistance Officers is strengthening their
skills and knowledge in capacity development and training. It is critical to address the capacity
building needs in this aspect since one of main tasks of their role is to facilitate capacity building
process of network members and partners. This task is very important in supporting efforts
toward the second suggested area of RECOFTC’s work in Indonesia, i.e., strengthening
community forestry models, in particular the second strategy of it, which is strengthening local
action learning capacity in developing CF models.
Capacity of network’s technical assistance officers in program development and project
management, particularly on monitoring and evaluation techniques, needs to be further
developed as well.
Organizational Capacity Building Needs
The networks or forums proposed as RECOFT’s key stakeholders need capacity building in
program management, including the establishment of monitoring and evaluation processes.
They also need to develop specific capacity building plans for their staffs who occupy certain
key roles. For this purpose, they need to develop competency profiles for the key roles. The
competency profiles for the two key roles in networks or forums (see Siscawati and Zakaria,
2010b) could be used as a reference. Once the networks have developed competency profiles,
17
they need to develop their capacity in human resource management system, including
supervision, evaluation, and identification of current and future skills gaps, based on the
competency profiles.
The networks need to develop stakeholder communication mechanism that enables
stakeholders to receive information about their on-going programs and to provide feedback.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)
Program Development Officer
Although program development officers have relative good capacity on required competencies,
they need to have stronger capacity on program development and project management. In
addition, they need to have capacity building on mobilizing alternative sources of financial
support so that their organizations would not only depend on support from funding agencies.
Some of them have tried to develop alternative business activities that support community-
based economic activities and at the same time adopt the principles of fair trade. This efforts
need to be further facilitated.
Program development officers of many NGOs have limited knowledge on gender aspects of
sustainable community forest management. Sufficient understanding on gender-related aspect
is critical so that they can design and develop programs that are gender sensitive.
Action Research Officer
Individuals performing the role of participatory action research in NGOs need to have capacity
building on the aspect of participatory action research, particularly knowledge and skills level 4.
This will help them to gain the following capacity required by the role they occupy: design,
manage and evaluate community based participative research programs which meet agreed
scientific standards of rigour and reporting. They also need more capacity related to sustainable
development and conflict management.
Action Research Officers of NGOs need to have awareness of gender aspects that relate to
community forestry, as well as knowledge and skills on the application of gender analysis in
socio-cultural assessment. Gender analysis will help them to get more complete information on
the division of labor between male and female or different social classes within the community,
disaggregated data on traditional knowledge, disaggregated information on who has access and
control over forest resources, who makes decisions on forest resource management and the
utilization of forest products at various levels (household, clan, village/customary institution,
state, market, etc.).
Action research officers also need to have capacity building in program development and
project management, particularly on monitoring and evaluation techniques.
18
Campaign and Policy Advocacy Officer
Campaign and Policy Advocacy Officers of NGOs need to develop their capacity in higher level
skills of the competency on awareness, public relations, and advocacy. In particular, they need
capacity building so that they are able to develop detailed plans of targeted advocacy programs
for government representatives and policy makers, and to develop media strategies and
campaigns to raise popular support for specific reforms and issues of national or international
importance.
They also need to have capacity building on gender-related knowledge and skills, especially
gender analysis so that they would be able to develop campaign and policy advocacy process
that address gender-related issues on CF.
Capacity of campaign and policy advocacy officers in program development and project
management, particularly on monitoring and evaluation techniques, need to be further
developed.
Community Organizing Officer
Community organizing officers from some organizations need more capacity in socio-economic
and cultural assessment to conduct and supervise socio economic, cultural and resource use
surveys in the field using basic techniques. Such enhanced capacity would also be useful in
stakeholder analysis.
They also need to have more capacity in the application of gender analysis and gender justice
principles in community organizing processes.
Other needs for capacity development include program development and project management.
Conflict Management Officer
Most conflict management officers are well equipped for sustainable development and conflict
management. But many also reported during interviews that they need to further develop their
capacity, as they need to handle emerging issues relate to sustainable development and to find
more creative ways in facilitating conflict management.
They need to have gender awareness and to have knowledge and skills to apply gender analysis
and gender equity principles in facilitating conflict management process.
They also need to develop knowledge and skills in program development and project
management, particularly related to monitoring and evaluation techniques.
19
Organizational Capacity Building Needs
NGOs need to have capacity building on the aspect of program development and project
management, including monitoring and evaluation.
On the aspect of human resource management, NGOs need to develop competency profile for
the key roles in their organization. They also need to develop their human resource
management system, including competency profiles as a major element.
NGOs need to develop their capacity in fundraising efforts, including organizing alternative
fundraising by inviting the public to give donations in any form (not only money but also time
and their willingness to get involved as volunteers).
In terms of stakeholder communication, NGOs need to have more capacity in establishing clear
mechanisms for stakeholder consultation.
Community Groups
Community Groups’ Communication/ Public Relation Officer
Community Groups’ Communication and Public Relation Officers need better knowledge of CF
specific regulations, and various forms of government-supported CF. Capacity building
processes and materials for them need to be tailored to their needs as communication officers,
their educational background and their access to different sources of information.
In terms of capacity in awareness, public relations and advocacy, they need more advanced
skills in awareness, public relation and advocacy required for the role they occupy.
They also need more capacity in program development and project management.
Village-based Community Organizer
Village-based Community Organizers need to receive information on CF related regulations and
other relevant regulations in more appropriate forms.
They need capacity building on sustainable forest management, especially capacity in
facilitating the process of developing a community forestry plan in accordance with regulatory
requirements.
These officers need to have gender awareness and to have knowledge and skills to apply gender
analysis and gender equity principles in facilitating village-based community organizing
processes.
They also need to develop knowledge and skills in program development and project
management, particularly in monitoring and evaluation techniques.
20
Organizational Capacity Building Needs
Community groups need capacity building in program development and project management at
organizational level so that they are able to manage their groups once they receive external
support or collaborate with other organizations.
The Ministry of Forestry
Policy and Planning Officer
Policy and planning officers from other directorate- generals apart from the Directorate General
of Land Rehabilitation and Social Forestry need more capacity in community forestry policy and
planning.
CF-related Program Development Officer
CF-related Program Development Officers need capacity in sustainable community forest
management, socio-economic and cultural assessment, sustainable development and conflict
management, as well as in awareness, public relation and advocacy.
They also need more capacity in gender related aspects of CF. By gaining knowledge in gender
related issues and skills on gender analysis, they can design and develop gender sensitive
programs.
CF-related Institutional Arrangement Officer
They need to have more capacity in program development and project management. Their
capacity in developing collaborative partnerships, plans and programs with other stakeholders
needs to be strengthened, considering that one of their main task is facilitating the development
and the implementation of coordination mechanisms among government agencies and other
stakeholders in the implementation of government sponsored CF programs.
Technical Officer and Field Officer
Technical Officers of other Directorate Generals (outside RLPS) need capacity building in the
field of sustainable community forest management, socio-economic and cultural assessment,
sustainable development and conflict management awareness, as well as public relations and
advocacy. In line with this, they also need capacity building in participatory techniques.
These officers need to have gender awareness and to have gender related knowledge and skills
so that they can apply gender analysis and gender equity principles in their work.
21
Education and Training Officer
Although they have good capacity in terms of individual capacity development and training,
they need more capacity in interactive learning process and the application of more creative
learning methods.
They also need to have capacity building on gender awareness so that they will be able to design
and develop education and training programs that are gender sensitive.
Provincial and District Forestry Agencies
Provincial and District Forestry Officers
Provincial and district forestry officers of regions that have limited exposure to CF need to
develop their capacity in community forestry policy and planning, sustainable community
forest management, and sustainable development and conflict management, as well as program
development and project management.
Organizational Capacity Building
Provincial and district forestry agencies need to have capacity building in CF policy and
planning so that they are able to mainstream CF in provincial and or district policies and plan.
Private Sector (Perhutani)
Policy and Planning Officers
Policy and planning officers of Perhutani need more capacity in community forestry policy and
planning, particularly related to the most recent regulations, schemes and government-
sponsored programs.
Technical Officers
These officers need more capacity in sustainable community forest management, socio-
economic and cultural assessment, sustainable development and conflict management. They
also need to have more opportunity to strengthen their skills and experience in applying
participatory techniques (PRA, PAR, etc.).
Organizational Capacity Building Needs
Perhutani needs to develop competency profiles that relate to technical competencies,
particularly the ones relating to community forestry. In doing so, the competency profiles for
two key roles in Perhutani (suggested in Siscawati and Zakaria, 2010b) can be used as one of
the references. Key competencies to be included in the competency profiles for key roles in
Perhutani should also include so called “soft skills” (communication skills, social skills) and
22
ability to develop a sense of empathy for local communities. By doing so, it is expected that the
mindset of Perhutani’s officers, from policy and planning officers to field officers, can be
gradually changing toward viewing local communities as equal partners.
Research and Academic Institutions
Researchers and Lecturers
Researchers and Lectures need to have awareness of gender aspects that relate to community
forestry, as well as knowledge and skills on the application of gender analysis in socio-cultural
assessment process so that they can design research and curricula that are gender sensitive.
They also need to have more capacity in program development and project management,
particularly in negotiating their program plans and proposals with relevant stakeholders
including funding agencies.
Organizational Capacity Building Needs
These institutions also need to have capacity building in establishing competency profiles for
researchers and lectures on community forestry, and integrate the profiles into existing human
resource management systems in their institutions.
Research and academic institutions also need to have more capacity building in the
development of fundraising strategies and approaches.
III. Recommendations In this section a set of recommendations is presented for consideration by RECOFTC in the
planning of their capacity development program in Indonesia.
III.1. Facilitation of Organizational Capacity Development
In facilitating the development of organizational capacity of proposed as key stakeholders,
RECOFTC ids advised to consider the following possible actions:
Organizing Training
RECOFTC could organize training in CF-related program development and project management,
including specific topic such as budget and financial management, monitoring and evaluation
techniques. Possible participants for these trainings are from Networks and Forums, NGOs,
Ministry of Forestry, Provincial and District Forestry Agencies, Private Companies, and
Research and Academic Institutions.
23
RECOFTC could also design the training as training for trainers (ToT), specifically aimed at
NGOs working with community groups (Indigenous Peoples’ groups, local community groups,
forest farmer groups, women groups). After attending this ToT, representatives of NGOs are to
design and develop training on above topics specifically aimed at community groups.
Alternatively, RECOFTC could also develop training designs for community groups.
Facilitating Strategic Networking
RECOFTC could play a role as facilitator of strategic networking among organizations proposed
as key stakeholders so that each organization benefits as much as possible from the networking
process. In facilitating the strategic networking, RECOFTC can build on the two suggested areas
of RECOFTC’s facilitation identified during the CBNA process in Indonesia and articulated in Fig.
2, page 9,: 1)Strengthening Community Forestry Models; 2)Supporting the Process of
Development of Community Forestry Policy.
Possible themes that could be used as entry points for facilitating the building of strategic
networks include: 1)climate change and community forestry; 2)community forestry in
conservation areas; 3)community forestry and fair trade of community forest products;
4)community forestry and the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Facilitating Sharing and Learning
In facilitating shared learning process, RECOFTC could facilitate a series of discussions on topics
that relate to RECOFTC’s proposed areas of work (community forestry models and community
forestry policy). Possible topics to be explored in the shared learning process are: 1)
community forestry and rewards for environmental services; 2)community forestry and REDD;
3) community forestry and forest certification.
Developing a Collaborative Pilot Project on Strengthening
Community Forestry Models
RECOFTC could develop a collaborative pilot project with the purpose of strengthening
community forestry model. RECOFTC’s pilot project in South Sulawesi can be taken as an
example of a strategic effort to facilitate capacity building process of various organizations
involved in the project.
Developing a Collaborative Capacity Building Process on
Community Forestry Policy
RECOFTC could develop a collaborative capacity building process on community forestry policy
by setting up a joint CF policy study with the participation of organizations that have
intensively worked on CF policies in broad terms (including the rights of Indigenous People,
farmers, women, and other marginalized groups).
24
III.2. Facilitation of Individual Capacity Development
Community Forestry Policy and Planning
RECOFTC could develop trainings or sharing and learning process in community forestry policy
and planning specifically designed for policy and planning officers of government agencies
within the Ministry of Forestry, Provincial and District Forestry Agencies, and Private Forestry
Companies. In the trainings or sharing and learning processes, RECOFTC could invite other
stakeholders to participate so that policy and planning officers could get an opportunity to
interact with representatives of other stakeholders and learn their point of view regarding
community forestry policies and program.
Program Development and Project Management
RECOFTC could design training and share learning process on program development and
project management for program development officers, technical officers, action research
officers, community organizing officers, and conflict management officers of various
organizations proposed as RECOFTC’s key stakeholders
Awareness, Public Relations and Advocacy
RECOFTC could develop training and share learning process on awareness, public relations and
advocacy that focusing on strengthening capacity in developing detailed plans of targeted
advocacy programs for government representatives and policy makers, and to develop media
strategies and campaigns to raise popular support for specific reforms and issues of national or
international importance. Participants of the training and share learning process could be
campaign and advocacy officers, communication and public relation officers, action research
officers, community organizing officers, and conflict management officers from RECOFT’s key
stakeholders.
Sustainable Development and Conflict Management
RECOFTC could design training and share learning process on sustainable development and
conflict management. The training and share learning process on conflict management could be
designed so that participants would have more capacity in designing more creative ways in
facilitating conflict management. Possible participants of the training and share learning are
conflict management officers, research action officers, community organizing officers, and
campaign and advocacy officers from RECOFTC’s key stakeholders.
Gender Analysis in Community Forestry
RECOFTC could develop trainings on gender analysis in community forestry, which could cover
awareness of gender aspects that relate to community forestry, as well as knowledge and skills
in the application of gender analysis in various processes facilitated by staff from RECOFTC’s
key stakeholders.
25
Annex 1 Forms of Community Forestry in Indonesia
1)fa c ilita tion of
c olla bora tion be twe e n
fore s t- ba se d c ompa nie s
a nd c ommunity groups in
the ma na ge me nt of fore s t
re sourc e s ; 2)s ta te -
sponsore d c ommunity
e mpowe rme nt in s ta te
fore s t a re a s in whic h
gove rnme nt ha s issue d
lic e nse s for c ompa nie s
(both s ta te - owne d a nd
priva te one s) to do logging
or to e s ta blish timbe r
pla nta tion
P P No. 6/2007; P P
No. 3/2008
Timbe r a nd NTFP S ta te - owne d a nd
priva te fore s try
c ompa nie s ; Community
Groups (Fore s t Fa rme rs
Group, e tc .)
Go ve rn me n t
Ag e n c y (with in
Min is try o f
Fo re s try) in
c h a rg e
Du ra tio n o f
p e rmit
Ma in c o mmo d i-
tie s
Ma n a g in g
in s titu tio n
1 Hutan
Ke masyarakatan / HKm
(Community- ba se d
Fore s t)
P P No. 6/2007; P P
No. 3/2008
S ta te Fore s t Dire c tora te Ge ne ra l
of La nd
Re ha bilita tion a nd
S oc ia l Fore s try
(Ditje n RLP S )
35 ye a rs
No . Na me Ma in P u rp o s e s Le g a l/P o lic y
B a s is
S ta tu s o f
fo re s t
la n d
Fo re s tla n
d u s e typ e
(b a s e d o n
Allo c a te d
Fu n c tio n )
Fore s t Fa rme rs Group
2 Hutan De sa (Villa ge
Fore s t)
S ta te Fore s t Ditje n RLP S 35 ye a rs Villa ge Gove rnme nt or
othe r Villa ge - ba se d
Ins titution (c ould be
c us toma ry ins titution)
1) re ha bilita tion of s ta te
fore s tla nd ; 2) s ta te
sponsore d c ommunity
e mpowe rme nt through
c ommunity groups
P roduc tion
fore s t
P rote c te d
Fore s t
Timbe r a nd Non-
Timbe r Fore s t
P roduc ts (NTFP )
1)ma na ge me nt a nd
prote c tion of s ta te
fore s tla nds whic h ha ve not
be e n ma na ge d by logging
c ompa nie s (in te rms of
produc tion fore s ts ) or
gove rnme nt a ge nc ie s ;
2)s ta te - sponsore d
c ommunity e mpowe rme nt
through villa ge - ba se d
ins titutions (in te rms of
prote c tion fore s t)
P P No. 6/2007; P P
No. 3/2008
P roduc tion
fore s t;
P rote c te d
Fore s t
NTFP ;
Environme nta l
se rvic e s
Timbe r Community Groups
4 Ke mitraan
(P a rtne rship); the
pa rtne rship form is
be twe e n c ompa ny (both
s ta te - owne d a nd priva te
one s) a nd loc a l
c ommunity
S ta te Fore s t P roduc tion
Fore s t
Ditje n BP K 35 ye a rs
3 Hutan Tanaman
Rakyat /HTR
(Community- ba se d
Fore s t Es ta te )
S ta te Fore s t P roduc tion
fore s t
Dire c tora te Ge ne ra l
of fore s try
produc tion (Ditje n
BP K)
35 ye a rs1)e s ta blishme nt of
c ommunity- ba se d fore s t
e s ta te /timbe r pla nta tion in
orde r to provide ma te ria ls
for timbe r- ba se d indus trie s
(inc luding pulp a nd pa pe r
indus trie s ); 2)de ve lopme nt
of we lfa re of c ommunity
groups
P P No. 6/2007; P P
No. 3/2008
26
Source: processed from intensive literature review at the CBNA process in Indonesia conducted by the CBNA team; Royo (2006), Siscawati & Muhshi (2008), Sirait (unpublished paper), Moniaga (2009)
No . Na me Main Purposes Legal/Policy Basis S ta tu s o f
fo re s t
la n d
Fo re s tla n
d u s e typ e
(b a s e d o n
Allo c a te d
Fu n c tio n )
Go ve rn me n t
Ag e n c y (with in
Min is try o f
Fo re s try) in
c h a rg e
Du ra tio n o f
p e rmit
Main
commodities
Managing institution
Timbe r a nd NTFP ;
Environme nta l
se rvic e s ; S oc io-
c ultura l va lue s
Cus toma ry Ins titution;
House hold
Timbe r; NTFP ;
Environme nta l
se rvic e s
Individua l Fa rme r
(fe ma le or ma le );
House hold
P roduc tion
fore s t;
P rote c te d
Fore s t;
Conse rva tio
n a re a
Timbe r; NTFP ;
Environme nta l
se rvic e s ; S oc io-
c ultura l va lue s
Cus toma ry Ins titution;
House hold
S K Dire ks i P e rum
P e rhuta ni No.
136/2001 te nta ng
P HBM; S K Dire ks i
P e rum P e rhuta ni No.
001/2002 te nta ng
P e doma n Be rba ga i
Ha s il Huta n Ka yu
(Guide line s of Fore s t
P roduc ts )
P e rhuta ni (S ta te - owne d
fore s try c ompa ny works
in Ja va ); Community
Groups (Fore s t Fa rme rs
Group, e tc .)
1) pa rtic ipa tory
ma na ge me nt of
c onse rva tion a re a s ;
2)fa c ilita tion of e xis ting
villa ge s loc a te d in
c onse rva tion a re a s (the se
villa ge s ha ve e xis te d long
be fore the e s ta blishme nt of
the a re a s a s c onse rva tion
one s)
Non- timbe r fore s t
produc t;
Ec ologic a l se rvic e s
Ma na ge me nt Unit of
Conse rva tion Are a ;
Villa ge gove rnme nt;
Community Groups
(Fore s t Fa rme rs Group,
e tc .)
1)re c ognition of a re a s
within s ta te fore s tla nd tha t
ha ve spe c ia l purpose s
(ma inly for soc io- c ultura l
a spe c ts ). Note : for the
c a se of Re pong Da ma r Krui
of La mpung, S uma tra , this
form is a dopte d for the
re c ognition of c us toma ry
fore s t a re a s tha t ha ve be e n
prove d to be sus ta ina bly
ma na ge d.
Timbe r a nd NTFPNo limita tion a s
long a s the Krui
P e ople c a n
pe rform the ir
re spons ibilitie s
in ma na ging
da ma r
a grofore s ts
Community Groups
6 Pe nge lolaan Hutan
be rsama Masyarakat /
P HBM (Ma na ging fore s ts
with Loc a l Communitie s )
S ta te Fore s t P roduc tion
Fore s t
5 ye a rs (this
dura tion c ove rs
the pe riod of
time from the
pla nting of
timbe r se e dlings
until young
timbe r tre e s no
longe r ne e de d
inte ns ive c a re )
Timbe r
5 Kawasan De ngan
Tujuan Is time wa/KDTI
( Zone with S pe c ia l
P urpose )
S K Me nhut No.
47/1998 te nta ng
Ka wa sa n Da e ra h
de nga n Tujua n
Is time wa (KDTI)
Re pong Da ma r Krui
S ta te Fore s t P roduc tion
Fore s t
1)fa c ilita tion of
c olla bora tion be twe e n
P e rhuta ni (s ta te fore s try
c ompa ny works in Ja va )
a nd c ommunity groups in
c ultiva ting timbe r se e dlings
a nd ma na ge me nt of
young timbe r tre e s ; 2)s ta te -
sponsore d c ommunity
e mpowe rme nt in s ta te
produc tion fore s t a re a s in
Ja va
8 Hutan Rakyat /P riva te ly
owne d Community
Fore s t
1)inc ome ge ne ra tion Fore s try La w No.
41/1999
Hutan Hak
(P riva te ly-
owne d fore s t
la nd)
No limita tion
from the s ta te
a s it is
c a te gorize d a s
priva te prope rty
7 Mode l De sa Konse rvas i
(Conse rva tion Villa ge
Mode l)
Dra ft of Minis te ria l
Re gula tion on the
de ve lopme nt of
c onse rva tion villa ge
mode l a s pa rt of
e mpowe rme nt of
c ommunitie s of
villa ge s loc a te d
surrounding
c onse rva tion fore s t
S ta te Fore s t Conse rva tio
n a re a
Dire c tora te Ge ne ra l
of Fore s t P rote c tion
a nd Na ture
Conse rva tion
(Ditje n P HKA)
P roduc tion
fore s t;
P rote c te d
Fore s t
10 S is te m Hutan
Ke rakyatan /S HK
(Community- ba se d
fore s t sys te m)
1)soc io- e c onomic
purpose s tha t a ddre ss
loc a l e c ologic a l re sourc e s
Ha s no le ga l/polic y
ba s is
9 Hutan Adat (Cus toma ry
Fore s t)
1)soc io- c ultura l, spiritua l,
e c ologic a l a nd e c onomic
purpose s a t c ommuna l a nd
house hold le ve ls
RP P Hutan Adat
(Dra ft Re gula tion on
Cus toma ry Fore s t);
howe ve r the
Indige nous P e ople
Allia nc e (AMAN) ha s
not supporte d the
la te s t ve rs ion of this
Dra ft Re gula tion
** IP groups
a dvoc a te for
c us toma ry
fore s ts to be
le ga lly
re c ognize d
a nd not
c ons ide re d
a s s ta te
fore s t
P roduc tion
fore s t;
P rote c te d
Fore s t;
Conse rva tio
n a re a
Top Related